Opinion
B262095
07-15-2015
In re K.H., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law. THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. K.H., Defendant and Appellant.
Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MJ22754) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel Nancy S. Pogue, Commissioner. Affirmed. Courtney M. Selan, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
The juvenile court sustained a petition filed under Welfare and Institutions Code 602, alleging that minor K.H., age 13, committed a lewd act upon a child under the age of 14, in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a). Minor was ordered suitably placed. A timely notice of appeal was filed.
This court appointed counsel for minor on appeal. Appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues, but requesting this court to independently review the record for arguable contentions pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Minor was advised by letter from this court of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days. Minor has not filed a supplemental brief with this court.
We have completed our independent review of the record. There are no arguable appellate issues.
The jurisdictional order is supported by substantial evidence. Without going into unnecessary detail, it is sufficient for purposes of this appeal to indicate that minor threatened a seven-year-old boy during a sleepover, and then attempted to sodomize the boy and made the boy touch minor's penis. After being advised of his constitutional rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, minor filled out a form indicating he knew the wrongfulness of his conduct. (See In re Gladys R. (1970) 1 Cal.3d 855.) Minor initially denied the alleged conduct, but ultimately admitted that he attempted to sodomize the victim.
The disposition of suitable placement was not an abuse of discretion. The reports contained in the clerk's transcript reflect minor's mental health issues, unstable family situation, poor school attendance, and placements outside of the home. This issues, considered in light of the serious nature of the allegations in the petition, amply support the dispositional order.
The judgment is affirmed. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259.)
KRIEGLER, J. We concur:
MOSK, Acting P. J.
Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------